America’s Abortion Headache

Those at the fringes of the abortion argument wish to make it simple. At the foundation of the ideological debate lies the civil rights of the unborn child versus the civil rights of the woman. Protect the life of the unborn (is it life?), or sacrifice the child’s life in hopes of a better life for the mother. The current data shows approximately 10 percent of Americans support abortion under all circumstances and approximately 10 percent of Americans oppose abortion under all circumstances.

Most Americans hold a more nuanced view, balanced by the obvious conundrums imposed by abortion. Most Americans don’t want to make a personal decision for another American, but most Americans also don’t like the idea that a helpless victim gets killed due to irresponsibility. (That is, choosing to abort a baby for convenience — or even worse, for gender — makes people uncomfortable. In the latter case, it’s nearly universally reviled — 90 percent of Americans are against aborting to select for gender.)

So even pro-choice folks will blanch at the implications of gender selection. But why is that any more offensive than aborting the healthy result of a rape or the genetically undesired child? Matt Lewis writes about this logical gap:

If one believes abortion is murder, they should not take solace in merely seeing to it that abortions are rare or infrequent — but that they are outlawed. Conversely, if one believes that abortion is not murder, why not celebrate it as a way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and control population? The most intellectually dishonest position one can take — regardless of where one comes down on the abortion debate — is that abortion should be legal but rare.

It does seem that the pro-choice folks, or those who are primarily pro-choice but who find abortion repugnant when used to select a gender, are being self-deceptive. Abortion is either taking a life or it is not. And if it is not taking a life, then it should never be offensive. In fact, abortion can really only be seen as a positive, life-affirming thing if no life is lost in the process.

Once again a pro-choicer asks for us to find common ground on abortion. I wonder if Obama would have wanted the segregationists to find common ground with those who wished to integrate. I imagine a speech Obama might have made when slavery was legal. He would have wanted slave owners to find common ground with the slaves. I mean, we couldn’t make slavery illegal because that would effect the economy, and the Supreme Court has declared that blacks are not fully human, so we should just find common ground to compromise. Allow slavery, but find ways to make slavery less necessary. We should come together to change hearts about slavery.

The pro-abortion opinion that life begins when a child gasps his first breath is patently ridiculous. Babies are being born and kept alive in less than ideal circumstances now as early as 20 weeks gestation. Often by the time a woman finds out she’s pregnant, the baby has a heartbeat. That means that blood, circulating nutrients to the body, is being pumped by the heart. The brain and brain stem are developing.

Scientific discoveries make dehumanizing embryos and fetuses more and more difficult. Here is a picture and 3D ultrasound of a 10 week gestation fetus. When at five or six weeks a woman hears the heartbeat, or sees the baby via ultrasound, it’s real. People can argue semantics about embryo and fetus. It’s a baby.

And when people think about the moral ramifications of this too much, it gets uncomfortable. So people don’t think much about it.

Most of the, so called, pro life conservatives I hear seem to place all the blame on the woman. Treating them as evil temptresses who just can’t keep their legs shut. Sorry, the issue of an unplanned pregnancy is a bit more complicated than that. But whatever the reason might be I trust women enough to know that the majority will consult their own conscience, God, and their family and doctor and come to a decision as to what is right at this moment in time. So, whatever the decision is I support it as long as it was made freely and with the woman’s autonomy intact. That’s what choice is about after all! Supporting the right of women to make good choices whatever that choice may be.

Forget about laws, these are human beings we are talking about. Abortion is no different than killing them with a bullet. Use your common sense people. Focus on that little baby in the womb, all warm, wet and safe. Rape is the worst violation of a human during life besides murder. But to kill a little baby! How can God judge it as anything else than murder.
The saving grace is that God can forgive the Mother who makes a terrible mistake, He will not be so kind to a society that countenances, no encourages, such a terrible act.

“Most Americans don’t want to make a personal decision for another American, but most Americans also don’t like the idea that a helpless victim gets killed due to irresponsibility.”

Thank you for so clearly providing intellectual context for the prolife goal of making abortion illegal.

We don’t have any reservations about demanding that 10 year olds aren’t killed by their parents. Since everyone (based on your citations) actually does know and understand that the womb-dwelling human is a living baby, why is it so “controversial” to demand that the baby not be deliberately killed?

It’s only controversial because the irresponsible, me first, ethics-starved abortion economy of the last 50 years has provided an easy offramp for people who don’t want to be responsible for their choices.

Delia covers the rape issue nicely. The 14 year old daughter of our friend was raped by an armed intruder at knifepoint in her own home 20 years ago. Our little church supported her through the birth and the court proceedings that sent the attacker to California state prison for 27 years.

There’s a beautiful young woman somewhere in the midwest who lived because everyone involved knew the situation was not her fault. (We know she’s beautiful because the adoptive parents provided photos over the years to the biological mom.)

A quote: ” 14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.” And “.. it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.”

“Treating them as evil temptresses who just can’t keep their legs shut.”
“That’s what choice is about after all! Supporting the right of women to make good choices whatever that choice may be.”

Choice comes before the act of sex, not after. If both parties use their respective birth control(condoms, vasectomy for men-BC pills, diaphragm, female condoms, etc. for women), the odds an unplanned pregnancy are miniscule. Destroying a human life rather than accept the consequences of one’s own irresponsible behavior is one of the most sickening practices that our society endorses. I have yet to hear a pro-abortionist argument that logically determines when the zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/toddler/preteen/adolescent should receive its right to life(and self-determination-ie choice), and I don’t really expect to.

“Child sacrifice for the sake of making our lives better. Real original and advanced, right?”

I hadn’t thought about it like that, but there is a certain degree of validity to the comparison.

That indeed is the nub of the question and one that the “pro choice” people have yet to answer in their own minds. Those of us that are pro life already know the answer, that it is indeed taking a life.

There is a phrase usually applied at weddings which has meaning in these circumstances because of its broader implication. ” What God has joined together, let no man put asunder”.
We in society ,especially secularly driven political society ,assume our majority will is the final factor in deciding issues such as the abortion debate.
Of course that is utterly false. God made the correct decision long ago but we think our modern denial negates Gods will.
Self delusion is another one of our modern failings.

We’ve known for decades that genes are what determines what an organism is.

The moment a zygote is formed, you have a life form which is genetically human, and genetically distinct from the mother. By definition, you have a new human life.

At what point this human becomes sentient, we may never know. What we do know, however, is that abortion terminates a human life.

Those who want to have sex and have the “choice” afterwards always struck me as being the same as people who want to jump off a cliff and then decide halfway down that they don’t want to hit the ground. In many ways abortion is simply a symptom of a widespread problem of people who simply do not want to have to deal with the consequences of their actions. So long as you want to skirt responsibility or have someone else take care of you, you simply cannot call yourself an adult.

Invoking god’s name over and over in these comments.. shows how biased responders are. Why should you decide according to your religious beliefs what my morality needs to be? America is supposedly a free country. Move to the ME if you want to have religion controlling society. Or Utah.

Praetorian – the question becomes, if it’s a life at that point, does it *matter* what the woman’s conscience says? Would you support a woman’s conscience-based decision to kill her child after it was born? No? But if it’s a life in both instances, there is no difference.

But on to my main point:

“and they want the option of killing — yes, killing — a baby to protect their own life.”

Should be amended to read: “and they want the option of killing — yes, killing — a baby to protect their own lifeSTYLE.”

We are so comfort driven in this society that having something in your life that complicates what you “wanna do” (career, school, travel, not have a few extra pounds) is somehow “unfair.” A baby meaning that a 16 year old single mother with no support can’t go to college is NOT the same as killing the baby for her convenience. And yes, even in big, important matters like college, it all comes down to convenience.

The other question is, how can the pro-lifers (like myself) win? Because of the way the law is written (all law, not just abortion law), any reasoning that contains the word “God” automatically loses, and will forever lose, in court (the only place winning the argument actually matters). It doesn’t matter how right the argument, it will necessarily always lose in court.

Do we want to save millions or not?

The law will only recognize science on these matters, and the “science” behind the reasoning, as pointed out in the article, is flimsy. Much stronger arguments are to be made for the point of implantation (the earliest we can measure that a pregnancy is taking place), a measurable heartbeat (21-24 days) or measurable brain waves (40 days). The formation of unique DNA (conception) would be wonderful if it were provable, but is absolutely invisible to any means of verification until after implantation.

The best route for the pro-life movement to take, in the legal sense, is to establish a scientifically tenable criteria for when a person starts to be alive. It makes sense to look at when a person is considered “dead.” The absence of a heartbeat in an adult (clinical death) is not “true death” as many people are “brought back” from this state (some are put into it on purpose for some types of surgery). There is a chance that the heartbeat argument might be made legally viable. If not, there’s still another possibility.

It seems that the one insurmountable criterion would be the one linked to brain activity. The absence of brain activity in adults is known as “biological death,” and that is “really dead.” One needs a machine to be kept alive with zero brain activity, and will not under any circumstances recover from such a state. No near-death experience there.

In short, the argument(s) that start from conception or involve God’s intent or quotes from Scripture are doomed to forever fail in court and ensure that abortion law, if it changes at all, will only be made more lax (especially as state-run health care doesn’t want to pay for babies with disabilities to live).

The most intellectually dishonest position one can take — regardless of where one comes down on the abortion debate — is that abortion should be legal but rare.

This is an interesting opinion, but it is hardly reasonable. Abortion is, like any surgery, potentially dangerous. There is no intellectual dishonesty in holding that the procedure should be both completely legal, and as rare as possible.

One would say the same thing about most medical procedures – why should abortion be different?

I want chemotherapy to be “safe, legal and rare” as well.

I don’t believe that abortion is murder, but that doesn’t mean that I want to promote it as the one-size-fits-all solution for birth control. Making abortion rare is about making sure there are alternatives available.

The most intellectually dishonest position I can identify on the abortion debate is the position that abortion should be illegal, except in certain cases. If you believe abortion is murder, exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother are all disingenuous fig leaves.

Ultimately, regardless of the law, abortion is a choice that every mother must make for herself. It has always been thus, and always will be. The sooner the forced-birth crowd comes to realize this simple fact, the better for all of us. The government has no right to interfere in such a decision.

“Invoking god’s name over and over in these comments.. shows how biased responders are. Why should you decide according to your religious beliefs what my morality needs to be? America is supposedly a free country. Move to the ME if you want to have religion controlling society. Or Utah.”

I’m impressed, only 17 comments to get to the “the first amendment gives me the right to kill another human being” argument. Brilliant! Just so you know tom, there are a number of us agnostics(and atheists I assume)who find killing someone as a means of dodging personal responsibility to be repellent.

While Dr. Clouthier points to the obvious, she does not ask the question of why people believe such hypocritical positions. I think there is a confluence of philosophies going on in the progressive pro-abortion mind. Let’s call this muddle moderate-postmodern-tolerant-materialistic-utilitarianism. Follow me on each point:

Moderate, because everything in moderation is okay thus the ‘safe and rare’ statement.

Postmodern, because making an objective statement assumes we know the persons story thus the ‘hard decision between woman and doctor’ justification.

Tolerant, which flows out of po-mo, because not knowing the situation means we cannot judge.

Materialistic-Utilitarianism, because children (or worse to a pro-abort, physically handicapped children!) born into poverty who, along with their mothers, become a drain on the State are bad for everyone, thus more money for more people is best outcome.

So, gender selection should not be a problem for the pro-abort crowd because if one gender is more expensive to raise and the stress of the extra cash outlays will be unduly burdensome on the parent(s) then abortion falls nicely into their philosophy as a means to a best outcome for all. And, when you add carbon footprints to the rubric, the decision for the progressive pro-abortion person is almost made for them.

Is murder only murder in a religious context? Please stop validating the stereotype of screaming, intolerant Liberals and try to grasp the “nuance” of the situation. Christianity was the driving force behind ending slavery. Although they misquoted the Bible, the main rationale of the slaveholders was pure secular economics. Still have a problem with religion? The greatest mass-killing in history was committed by the atheistic Soviet states. All the casualties of all the wars of religion combined didn’t claim that many people. If you really understood history and the contribution of Christianity to this country (not the public school version with which you’ve obviously been imbued), you would abandon your one-dimensional platitudes.

Sure, abortion is killing. But so what? I think that it should be legal to terminate babies up to the age of 1, maybe later. As Ms. Clouthier points out, birth really isn’t that concrete a dividing line, so why stop there? Let the baby be born and if it doesn’t have the looks or personality you hope for, terminate it painlessly and try again.

Praetorian, the time for good choices is before a baby is conceived. That is when woman are responsible for protecting their bodies and their lives. The time for consulting your conscience is before a baby is conceived. My mother gave me very wise advice about women who get pregnant out of wedlock: “The good girls have the babies.” One mistake made by a male and a female does not justify a murder. At least now with DNA, the male cannot just walk away and not take responsibility for the child.

David S represents all that is vile and repulsive about the liberal mindset. They value nothing, have respect for nothing, research nothing and cannot see the forest for the trees. If they would venture out of their basements and coffee shops for a bit and maybe do some reading or travel a bit, imagine how the Democratic party might evolve. Until then, we’re stuck with the tired lines of a liberal that “it’s” not a human til it’s born, blah, blah, blah….

Typical nonsensical talking points learned from some loony college campus that they dare not turn loose of in favor of embracing the real world (far too scary).

“there would still be self-defense matters to account for. Pregnancy is hazardous, after all.”

Yeah, since self perception of danger(real or imagined) is the only determinant of the validity of self-defense cases. :roll eyes: Let me guess, self perception of threat is also the basis of what constitutes “justifiable homicide” :roll eyes again:

David, you do realize that you’re comparing a child—an unborn infant—to a murderer? An attacker?

And, when you use the chemotherapy argument, you’re comparing said unborn child to a cancer?

It seems to me you have some really strange idea about children, and the actual nature of reproduction. Repeat after me: Kids are young humans. They are not deadly, pint-sized killers, they are not a disease. We all started out as kids, shocking as that may be to believe.

Sheesh, if babies truly are that deadly, and pregnancy so hazardous, perhaps women should all vow celibacy, or have themselves sterilized, to save themselves from the threat of those narsty, narsty babies! That seems to be the jist of your argument: “Babies are horrible, and dangerous, don’t have any!”

Also, it really can’t be argued that, like an adult attacker, the unborn child deliberately attacked the mother; forced itself into her womb, forced her to have sex in the first place, deliberately threatened her life, with malice aforethought, and now sits inside her uterus, chuckling evilly and thinking, “BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH, I’M GOING TO KILL MOMMY!” That’s an argument that just won’t wash. An unborn child can’t be regarded in the same light as an adult attacker.

Again, if mommy’s health is so precarious that a pregnancy can kill her (I suspect this is rarely the case these days, outside of Lifetime Chanel melodramas) she should avoid sex altogether, or get her tubes tied.

(David S., by the way, is reiterating the old, Victorian idea that females are delicate flowers, cursed with deadly wombs which cannot be understood by mere males; that pregnancy is a hideous curse, and a menace, to such delicate, fragile beings.)

And why don’t you buy the murder gambit? Does abortion end a life, or doesn’t it?

Well, Geoff, going by Dave’s argument, I guess that, whenever you “perceive” a possible danger, you’re perfectly free to start attacking others in order to defend yourself. After all, what’s important is your perception, not the actual danger.

24. Bret: “Sure, abortion is killing. But so what? I think that it should be legal to terminate babies up to the age of 1, maybe later. As Ms. Clouthier points out, birth really isn’t that concrete a dividing line, so why stop there? Let the baby be born and if it doesn’t have the looks or personality you hope for, terminate it painlessly and try again. Works for me.”

Many creatures have a larval stage, for example, marsupials, amphibians, and insects. For mammals, I tend to think of the years between birth and puberty as a sort of larval stage because the mammal hasn’t reached maturity.

So why would it be OK to kill a creature before the larval stage (as an egg or fetus) but not after? Wouldn’t killing the creature anytime before maturity make just as much sense? Wouldn’t about age 13 be a better max termination age for humans? Or do we wait until their brain has fully developed after the teenage years? No wait… maybe the dividing line should be after the child bearing years, after the human has served its useful purpose in life.

I think the dividing line is conception. I was upset when one of my tadpoles died. I’m not kidding. It’s annoying to me how some people take abortion so lightly.

“most Americans also don’t like the idea that a helpless victim gets killed due to irresponsibility. (That is, choosing to abort a baby for convenience — or even worse, for gender — makes people uncomfortable. In the latter case, it’s nearly universally reviled — 90 percent of Americans are against aborting to select for gender.)”

Abortion is birth control. It is for the woman. It is for their convenience. This is about wants not needs. It is self-serving. It is disgusting that some women adopt the victim mindset in this ‘choice.’

“David, you do realize that you’re comparing a child—an unborn infant—to a murderer? An attacker?

And, when you use the chemotherapy argument, you’re comparing said unborn child to a cancer?”

Both of these are extremely accurate representations of the types of choices women and their doctors face every day, and as you know I am not going to agree that a child and a fetus are the same thing.

“Sheesh, if babies truly are that deadly, and pregnancy so hazardous, perhaps women should all vow celibacy, or have themselves sterilized, to save themselves from the threat of those narsty, narsty babies!”

Is there some reason that you think the state needs to be the primary arbiter of reproductive decisions?

Malice aforethought is not required for someone to pose an imminent threat. I think you misunderstand the nature of the problem.

“Again, if mommy’s health is so precarious that a pregnancy can kill her (I suspect this is rarely the case these days, outside of Lifetime Chanel melodramas) she should avoid sex altogether, or get her tubes tied.”

And again, why do you think that this decision should not be the woman’s? Why do you insist on telling people what they should do with their own bodies?

“(David S., by the way, is reiterating the old, Victorian idea that females are delicate flowers, cursed with deadly wombs which cannot be understood by mere males; that pregnancy is a hideous curse, and a menace, to such delicate, fragile beings.)”

Hardly. Medical science has the capacity to prevent much of the pain, suffering and death that was associated with pregnancy and birth complications in the past. Denying the tools of medicine to women on the basis of religious belief is not good public policy. It’s not even remotely Victorian – just logical.

“And why don’t you buy the murder gambit? Does abortion end a life, or doesn’t it?”

By definition, abortion is not murder if it is legal. Abortion ends a gestation.

Your primary argument says: if abortion is killing human life, then it should always be illegal; and inversely if abortion is not killing human life, then it should always be legal. Abortion is killing human life, thus it should always be illegal.

Then you close with this position: “If the abortion decision was based purely on morality and ethics, abortion would still be illegal — except for the extraordinarily rare cases to save a woman’s life.”

I agree with the argument laid out in the paper. I also believe it is important to be consistent and non-contradictory in your views. Unfortunately, you violated that with your position quoted above. Based on your conclusion, it is OK to sacrifice the baby for another human’s life. It wasn’t too long ago that parents would give their life to save their children. Now even many in the anti-abortion crowd want abortion illegal as long as their is an exemption for them.

Stick to your initial argument: if abortion is killing human life then it should ALWAYS

Your primary argument says: if abortion is killing human life, then it should always be illegal; and inversely if abortion is not killing human life, then it should always be legal. Abortion is killing human life, thus it should always be illegal.

Then you close with this position: “If the abortion decision was based purely on morality and ethics, abortion would still be illegal — except for the extraordinarily rare cases to save a woman’s life.”

I agree with the argument laid out in the paper. I also believe it is important to be consistent and non-contradictory in your views. Unfortunately, you violated that with your position quoted above. Based on your conclusion, it is OK to sacrifice the baby for another human’s life. You want abortion illegal as long as their is an exemption for you. It wasn’t too long ago that parents would give their life to save their children.

Stick to your initial argument: if abortion is killing human life then it should ALWAYS be illegal. Abortion does take human life, so it should always be illegal. Its not hard to understand, but why think about it when it is so much easier to kill the baby.

The formation of unique DNA (conception) would be wonderful if it were provable, but is absolutely invisible to any means of verification until after implantation.

~~~~

Anyone who has ever done in vitro knows there is a unique DNA signature *without* implantation. The two DNA patterns combine and begin to divide in geometric progression within minutes of a sperm penetrating the Cell wall. The ovum *knows* it has been penetrated by another DNA signature as it *instantly* produces a chemical reaction that will STOP any other DNA siganture (sperm) from penetrating it.

So, gender selection should not be a problem for the pro-abort crowd because if one gender is more expensive to raise and the stress of the extra cash outlays will be unduly burdensome on the parent(s) then abortion falls nicely into their philosophy as a means to a best outcome for all.
~~~~

I confess, I too wonder about the pro-abortionists hysteria in regards to gender-selection. hey, they want it all legal with no-questions asked, since when do they draw a line? since the babies being aborted tend to be female. Sure to attract the attention of the NOW crowd – unless those baby girls are of muslim parents. (and don’t think they don’t. WA has an underground-industry that does sex selection/abortions for people coming from *outside* the US. Almost universally from cultures that desire boys, and consider girls a financial burden.)

What is perhaps not well known, is the number of women who wouldn’t normally choose to abort, but are manipulated into it by their Doctor.

90% of Down’s babies are aborted. Insurance companies MANDATE pre-natal testing for Down’s, now for two other types of trisomy as well. (thank you march of dimes – I *REFUSE* to give to them). to refuse mean’s to sign a wavier (and I’ve signed every time I was pregnant. I’m not going to abort, why bother risking a baby born MISSING fingers or toes from CVS? or a miscarriage from an amnio?). To have a positive CVS or Amnio means to be pressured to abort.

Women are NOT given the facts; including that CVS is not 100% accurate, (or can cause missing fingers or toes) or that there are degree’s of disability, or what resources are out there to support a family with a handicapped child. I think this is one reason why the left hates Sarah Palin – she kept her down’s baby, and their whole family loves him.

I know a number of women who have been seriously pressured by a doctor to abort – they were married and the fetus was healthy, but things weren’t 100% perfect (are they ever?). Each of those that carried, delivered healthy babies. most refused, but young and naive one’s frequently don’t have the education or backbone to tell a doctor to go take a hike.

The best route for the pro-life movement to take, in the legal sense, is to establish a scientifically tenable criteria for when a person starts to be alive. It makes sense to look at when a person is considered “dead.” The absence of a heartbeat in an adult (clinical death) is not “true death” as many people are “brought back” from this state (some are put into it on purpose for some types of surgery). There is a chance that the heartbeat argument might be made legally viable. If not, there’s still another possibility.

~~~~~

This also raises the juxtapotion of pregnant women who are murdered and charging the killer with two deaths. (think Lacey Peterson) Generally, the woman’s family wants the dead baby added to the list, prosecutors want to add it to the list, and in high profile cases, even most of the public wants the baby added to the list of charges.

Only the die-hard pro-abort crowd resists – if they admit a wanted baby has life in the womb, how can they hold an unwanted one is just a blob of cells?

The Chinese among other Orientals traditionally
believed that life began at conception and
therefore calculated a person’s age from that
point.

To David S Peace-Abortion is not murder because
it is legal? You agree then that in societies
where abortions of convenience are illegal
both for a woman and assistant it constitutes
murder?

Point is there is many ways of looking at
this issue, but to say that the pregnant
woman has the only say period in this matter
is a cop out. To use an analogy- When I’m
looking after an infirm person and I feel
this is too stressful or financially
taxing and I allow them to die the reality,
as David S Peace puts it, nobody can
prevent me or even find out.

Is this right? Don’t equate right with
the ability to do something. Also because
something is legal in a particular society
at a particular time doesn’t make it the
right thing to do quashing alternative
points of view.

“there would still be self-defense matters to account for. Pregnancy is hazardous, after all.”

~~~

so much for all the screeching of the feminists about what a “natural” state pregnancy is, that it is NOT a disability, and women SHOULDN’T be “discriminated” against becasue they are pregnant (and that includes from things that ARE dangerous) and how women have been having pregnancies for millenia. oh, and the eau de natueral crowd and how women just “drop” their babies in the field and go back to work. (and what was the mortality rate again?)

Yes, it is legal to get an abortion. And yes, I would be surprised if it became illegal again. What we do need is to teach people that legality and morality are two different things. Often they coincide, but often what is legal can be immoral and what is moral can be illegal. Each is responsible to do the right thing regardless of the legality. Through out history many have been imprisoned for doing what is right. Likewise, many have followed the state against their own conscience. The question is which position do we want to hold?

In 10th grade in health class, the teacher wanted us to debate abortion. He wanted us each to debate the opposing side, so we could see both sides of the issue. After class I respectfully told him that it would be against my conscience to debate for abortion. He would not take “no” for an answer. If the embryo is a living human being (and I don’t have any evidence to the contrary) what justification would there be for killing it? It is a very black and white issue.

One of the fundamental responsibilities of Government is not welfare, health-care, or even education. It is the protection of people with in its borders from invaders & murderers. People believe abortion should be a private matter. Its nobody else’s business. And the rest turn their heads exclaiming, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

“[If the] suggestion of personhood [for the unborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

The central argument of this piece is clear and true: If abortion is murder, then it should always be illegal. If abortion is not murder, then it should never be illegal.

I think that the observation that 80% of Americans are uncomfortable taking either of the above stances shows that we live in a morally bankrupt climate. Objectivism can provide the needed morality without resorting to Mysticism.

“Pro-Choice” are generally Leftists who disavow the existence of good and evil. These minds simply cannot grasp an absolute and it is not surprising that they waffle and evade an tough issues.

“Pro-Life” are generally Mysticists who believe that some supernatural being has defined both good and evil explicitly. These minds have trouble seeing beyond their indoctrination and evaluating an issue not explicitly detailed in their teachings.

My thinking on the matter is that we must discern between “potential life” and “existing life” and we must follow the tenet that no human being should ever be used as an ends to another’s means. Sperm, ovum, zygotes, embroyos, fetuses are all “potential life”. It would be immoral to sacrifice an existing life for a potential one. For this reason, abortion must be allowed and, per the thesis of the article, if it is allowed sometimes, it must be allowed all times.

I would find a person who aborted for birth-control or gender selection to be repugnant and someone I would avoid personally. But I would not support jailing such a person. There is a difference between immoral and unpleasant.

As a parallel, consider a person who tortures animals. Animals are outside of the realm of morality (they don’t follow any moral code) therefore such an act of torture is not immoral. But it is disgusting and any person doing this would be socially outcast.

53. psb4d: “The central argument of this piece is clear and true: If abortion is murder, then it should always be illegal. If abortion is not murder, then it should never be illegal.”

“Murder” is actually defined in most dictionaries and in common law as “The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with intent or premeditated malice.” So technically, abortion isn’t murder in the U.S. because it’s legal. So do you really mean to use the phrase “immoral or unjust killing” instead of “murder”? It’s a difficult argument anyway because you’re not going to get a consensus on what’s immoral or unjust.

BTW: Sperm, ovum, zygotes, embroyos, and fetuses are all living and are therefore “life”. Zygotes, embroyos, and fetuses are life after conception that can proceed to develop into a more complex organism. “Potential life” is the twinkle in Daddy’s eye!

To continue-The pro-abortion crowd states a
woman has total dominion over her body in
regards to a pregnancy. Why stop there-
What right do we have to revive an attempted
suicide? That person certainly has dominion
over their body and what right do we have to
challenge their judgement if we follow the
abortionists argument.

To counter logical arguments the abortionists
fall back on the fetus is not human. Science
is not on their side. For them a magical
moment must instantaneously occur at the
moment the baby leaves the mother’s body and
not one second earlier.

To put it bluntly really lame but then they
have to grasp at any straw to justify their
actions. Another argument is why do those
opposed to abortion have to prove the fetus
is human life while those who favor it do
not have to prove it isn’t. Sort of a guilty
till proven innocent way of thinking. Sort
of the way a Canadian Human Rights Commission
works.(See Mark Steyn)

[If the] suggestion of personhood [for the unborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.

This is where the current feminist leaders have painted themselves into a corner. On the one hand, they insist that abortion has no moral dimension, and is simply a choice with no downside whatsoever. On the other hand, they want to be able to prosecute someone who attacks a woman and kills the fetus for murder.

58. psb4d: “@maak: My definitions were not precise. Thanks for pointing that out. I lacked the qualifier “sentient” in both assertions.”

I don’t think “sentient” is the word you’re looking for. “sentient” is defined as “responsive to or conscious of sense impressions”. My frogs were sentient as tadpoles. A human fetus could be born without a fully developed brain rendering them alive but not really conscious. They say the brain and spinal cord form first during the 1st Trimester but I don’t know when a actually fetus becomes sentient. I’d say they are definitely sentient in the 3rd Trimester.

On your other question, my opinion is that before conception, a cell is a cell. A sperm or an egg is not much different than a skin cell or a liver cell. They have their own special properties but all cells have their own special properties.

I’ll never understand the ‘leftist’ stance that a convicted murderer/rapist/child-molester being put to death is ‘evil’ and yet, killing an innocent human being is ‘a-okie-dokie’ cuz the ‘woman’ decided she didn’t want to have a baby.

Sure, but so what? What isn’t a choice? Every vile crime that was ever committed was a choice, so where does that get us?

I’m amazed by anyone’s ability to move from “it’s a choice” to “I have the absolute right to demand that society protect me from interference in my choice regardless of who has to die as a result.” It’s hardly the standard we apply to any other civil or criminal laws.

Hmmm, I think I get it, David S.; making something legal, makes it moral.

Therefore, slavery in early America and the Holocaust were both perfectly moral. Because both these things were legal.

Also, you are saying that, children, are, indeed, cancers, not young humans, and that childbirth in modern day America is so dangerous and life-destroying that women need abortion to protect themselves from it. Do you have any statistics to back that up, by the way?

I wasn’t saying at all that the state should sterilize women for their own good. I was agreeing with you!

If childbirth is so very, very dangerous, and, since it doesn’t result in a human child (according to you, a fetus is not the same as a human being, wouldn’t women would be better off either sterilizing themselves, or entering convents! After all, if kids are so horrible, if they routinely threaten their mothers’ lives, wouldn’t women be better off either virgin or celibate, thereby avoiding all danger from such monstrosities?

I wasn’t recommending the state do this for women, however. I was merely agreeing with you on the deadly dangers of maternity.

I suppose Lesbianism would help women avoid the calamity of pregnancy as well, although given the popularity of gender selection abortions (which usually select males), the problems of women and pregnancy may not matter so much in the coming, brave new world—a world in which women will choose not to give birth to women, because women have the all-powerful right to choose, after all, and many will choose not to have daughters. However, as David S. will tell us, unborn baby girls really babies. They’re sham-wows, or tupperware, because known, human beings, unlike every other species, don’t reproduce their own kind. Their unborn progeny aren’t human —in fact, they’re a deadly kind of cancer, which women are better off without.

It is a mystery as to where young human being actually come from. Some say the stork, while others claim they’re mass-produced by a factory located in Kansas City, Missouri.

“My thinking on the matter is that we must discern between “potential life” and “existing life” and we must follow the tenet that no human being should ever be used as an ends to another’s means. Sperm, ovum, zygotes, embroyos, fetuses are all “potential life”. It would be immoral to sacrifice an existing life for a potential one. For this reason, abortion must be allowed and, per the thesis of the article, if it is allowed sometimes, it must be allowed all times.”

Where people get this “potential life” nonsense is beyond me, as there certainly doesn’t seem to be any disagreement in modern medicine that conception marks the beginning of human life. Why stop at fetuses, we might as well extend the “potential life” concept to infants and adolescents, seeing as we already regard them as having a different status under that law than adults? The fact that some people think that “it’s not a person, it’s a fetus” is any more logical than “it’s not a person, it’s an infant” shows that we may well be on the way to an idiocracy(last year’s american idol presidential election goes along with that hypothesis).

@TomF, maak: There is a huge gap between “life” and “human life”. I have absolutely no qualms eating a hamburger as cows, while alive, are not human life. Similarly, there is no moral issue with using lab mice to research cancer in human beings.

An embryo or fetus may be alive, but it is not human life. It cannot think. It cannot act on morality. In most cases, it cannot even exist without being embedded in a mother. This is the very definition of “potential” life.

@Geoff: The extension of this line of thought to children and adolescents is interesting. Children are definitely in a moral grey area. They are both the property and the responsibility of their parents. They retain their own individuality yet they are almost entirely dependent. As such, they get sort of half-rights. It is moral and correct to force them to go to school and for a parent to discipline their children. But, due to their existence as individuals, to kill or malnourish your child would be immoral and should be a crime.

One cannot value this cluster of non-sentient cells more than one values an actual human life. To do so would be immoral as you are sacrificing real, here and now human life for something that has merely the potential for human life.

I don’t get the idea of “potential life.” Bacteria are alive. That’s not the point. What we seem to be getting at is something more like the idea that a fetus is a “potential human.” It’s obviously alive already, but is it human? I say yes, pretty early on, if not exactly at conception, though I realize many don’t agree. But the later you get in the pregnancy, the harder it is to say it’s not human and have anyone take you seriously on this or any other subject again as long as you live. Because somewhere around 20 weeks, and possibly much earlier, the notion that the fetus is not human has become a little white lie that people tell to make themselves feel better, without at all expecting anyone to believe them.

I had the unfortunate experience of having a science teacher take us to a hospital lab where they kept ‘pickled’ babies from about every age of gestation as you can fathom.

That experience haunts me to this day, knowing these little babies are treated as ‘examples’ in pickle juice [oh, okay formaldehyde but, you get the idea), but, these are HUMANS. HUMAN BEINGS!!!!!!!! Not buried properly, not grieved over, but PICKLED for us to OBSERVE.

Many of the girls in our class ran to the bathroom to throw up. I remained numb until later that day when my head hit my pillow and I bawled my guts out.

Seeing those tiny fingers, toes, limbs, arms, facial expressions on even the tiniest of ‘fetuses’ was an eye-opener for me. I swore to myself after that day that I’d never, ever, EVER abort a baby of mine.

In short, if it’s not human, then what, exactly, is it? It really isn’t common for a species to give birth to things entirely different from itself. Polar bears give birth to polar bear cubs, tigers have baby tigers, wolves have young wolves, yet, somehow, we’re supposed to believe that humans don’t give birth to humans!

In which case, one has to wonder where humans do come from? Are space aliens dropping them from flying saucers? Or does Santa drop them down the chimney?

You are the second pro-abortion person I have heard compare a fetus to nail clippings. That disturbs me. Besides that, a child does have full rights to EXIST.

More to the point, any court would define the existence of a unique code of DNA as belonging to an individual human being. In my mind this separates the fetus from the mother an establishes a unique identity, at the moment of conception.

The thorny issue to me came when a cousin of mine gave birth to a baby afflicted with Canavan disease. It’s a terrible disease to live with, and the little girl will be dead before she’s 20, never able to respond to her parents or lead a life outside of her bed. Does anyone think that in some cases there are quality of life issues for children born with serious genetic defects? I am haunted by this question… Like I’m trying to justify murder “for the baby’s own good”. But on the other hand, the reality is prolonged suffering… My cousin subsequently wanted to have a normal child and did abort to prevent another child with Canavan. I’m still trying to figure this out.

It takes a lot of intellectual dishonesty to reduce a living thing to an inanimate object. I guess a severely mentally retarded child should be killed indiscriminately since after all only a bundle of cells, right?

It is an unborn human. This is proven by the fact that it has human DNA and if left to grow it will develop into an adult human.

There are instances where you’re correct. There are times, fairly common in fact, where the embryo doesn’t develop and it is truly just a “bundle of cells,” more of a tumor than a fetus. Usually it aborts itself, but sometimes it has to be removed by a doctor. It fits your description, but it is very distinguishable from a fetus, and your trying to intellectually label an apple an engine block is a pretty pathetic attempt at justifying the unjustifiable.

Psb4d, when you come right down to it, every human being is just a “bundle of cells.”

And what do you mean by children/teenagers having only, “half rights?” What is half a right, exactly? Does it mean that, as in the ancient world, their parents can sell them as slaves, even kill them? Does it mean that the murder of, say, a child, isn’t as heinous as a that of a 50 year old? Does it mean children must be totally subservient to adults, even when forced to commit sexual acts, or allow themselves to be beaten?

Again, I ask—if a fetus isn’t human, than what is it, exactly? (And, no, please, not the “cluster of cells” argument. Any living organism is, essentially, “A cluster of cells.” And children in the womb are not passive lumps of flesh; they kick, suck their thumb, play with their toes and can actually be quite lively. Your toenail clippings don’t spring up of their own accord after being cut off, and run around.)

America’s president breaks new ground virtually every day. Now, his shovel is digging away, chipping away in the ground of that quality which distinguishes people from all other species on the planet, humankind’s sense of conscience.

Many beasts of the Earth are more powerful than humans, many are faster, more ravenous. To PETA people, denizens of the animal world are better than we and maybe more attractive and intelligent than we are. However, as far as I know, even PETA does not attribute to animals the element of conscience.

Merriam-Webster defines the word as “the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one’s own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good.”

In his effort to abort as many pre-born babies as possible, the most avidly pro-abortion president in America’s history is in process of amending that definition. In effect, he is adding to that sense of “moral goodness” and “obligation to do right or be good” the limitation, “except when Mr. Obamabortion dictates otherwise.

Personally, I don’t like “holier than thou” types, professional do-gooders who seek self-agrandizement more than true goodness and I certainly don’t hold myself out as an exemplar of a perfect morality. However, what I truly detest is anyone who seeks to impose no options but evil options on decent people.

Such is the aim of the abortion lobby, Department of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, and President Obamabortion.

As with most political activists and politicians, they try to cloak their actual intent with ambiguity and obfuscate that intent with misleading rhetoric and false promises.

Thus, when Sec. Sebelius says that the president “supports existing federal laws that prevent federally funded health care providers from forcing doctors and pharmacists who morally oppose abortion from either performing the procedure or providing abortion-inducing medication,” she is out and out lying. . . .

It is obvious that the real problem is that we have a real lack of love. The scary thing is that it is a lack of motherly love, the one love that is considered the last to go. It could be argued that a mother that is so devoid of motherly love for her unborn child should go ahead and abort the baby.

Sarah, your logic is basically the basis of Euthanasia. Why stop with babies in the womb? Why not out of the womb as well? (Which sometimes happens when a late term abortion goes wrong. The atrocity was begun so it needs to be seen through to the end.) Why stop with babies? Lets include the elderly and the sick. Or just the unwanted. It is because life is sacred. That means it is holy. The Bible attributes this sacredness to the image of God which is in every human. But I forgot not everyone believes in God. Lets keep God out of it. Where does that leave us. With no objective morality, just the law of the jungle and the survival of the fittest. Lets just revive fascism. Who is to say that they were “wrong”? You? (Rhetorically speaking, not anyone in particularly) We must not forget that fascists were not barbarians but educated in Nietzsche’s philosophy of a dead god and a superman. The Nazis were just brash enough to try to put his philosophy to practice.

Concerning the definition of “human life”. Is an embryo a human life. Personally, I do not have much doubt on this point. But lets suppose that I really don’t think so. I think that it is only “pontential life” that is only some tissue that can be removed from the mother. How sure am I of this. Is there enough basis to back this up. Why is killing a newborn considered murder and a baby in the womb all right? Where is the line? At the first breath? If I am not sure, than I would rather err on not committing a horrendous act against my own offspring. The burden of proof is on those who would consider the embryo devoid of human rights. Maybe abortion is all right? Maybe it is wrong? If you go ahead and do something so serious and you have doubts about it. Then you have acted against your conscience. The point of the article is that it is clear that the overwhelming majority of Americans have doubts about abortion. The abortionist claim it is just a conscience brainwashed from antiquated traditions and values that needs to be educated and enlightened. Is there really that much proof that it is not a living human? Maybe our inate conscience is telling us something. Woe to the nation that has a desensitized hardened conscience. History is full of examples.

I have dropped friends after finding out they’d had an abortion. I do think it’s murder, and the most heinous kind. There is nothing worse than a parent killing their child. There is no justification for it. If you want the right to choose, exercise that right prior to sex. Choose to use BC. Choose not to have sex if you can’t handle any and all outcomes-after all, pregnancy is hardly the worst thing that can come from sex. HIV, herpes, HPV….Choose to give your child up to a couple capable of loving it, if you can’t. Pro-choice people people act like they care about women’s rights, but they really just infantalize women-women are too irresponsible and stupid to understand and take responsibility for their actions, don’t you know!

And don’t talk to me about rape. 1) the baby doesn’t care and isn’t at fault and 2) they are less than 1% of all abortions. Rape victims also have access to the morning after pill, which brings on an immediate heavy period and washes out sperm. No abortion needed.

A condom company did a study on condom use. Condoms are the #1 form of BC used in the US. And the overwhelming majority of people who rely on them use them only intermitantly. Meaning not every time. What do they THINK is going to happen? It’s sheer irresponsibility, and unacceptable for beings supposedly so intelligent.

Not at all. I simply don’t see any reason why the state should interfere in the doctor-patient relationship. There are many reasons a woman might wish to abort – but these reasons are and should remain private.

I do not want a woman who has been raped to be forced to prove that she was raped in order to abort the rapist’s progeny. It is barbaric to suggest that women should be prevented by the state from determining for themselves when gestation should be terminated.

The answer to the “abortion headache” is to let the doctor and patient deal with it – not to legislate a solution that denigrates the hard-earned rights of women to their own reproductive choices. How does that bumper sticker go…. “Keep your laws off my body”? Yeah, that about sums it up.

BC should be put in the water supply. No antidote unless you can provide proof of assets, a marriage certificate, and evidence of mental competency. No more indulging in bastardy, the cause of most social problems costing me taxes.

#89 Oldguy – I disagree. Yes, young guys are pro-abortion, especially the college crowd. So are the vast majority of women, because of their “empathy” for other women and their “circumstances”. No empathy for the baby, of course. This is why abortion is still allowed. Women support it. This is how the Dems manage to be in power, because most women vote Dem. They also supported Obama very heavily.

Mature men oppose abortion. We are the providers and protectors of society. We also heavily opposed Obama. I agree with Ann Coulter’s observation. If you look at issues and society, at policies implemented, the women are the ones supporting all the bad decisions. We’d be better off if the women didn’t vote.

My own addition to this observation is that it tends to split amongst women as to whether or not they are married. It seems married women are prone to vote more sensibly, more conservatively. They have a man to rely on, thus feel more secure, and so, can think more sensibly, not being dominated by their fears.

It seems the unmarried women are the ones supporting abortion, entitlements, national health care, etc…. They want the government to do for them what a man is supposed to be doing for them.

I’m not really against women voting. I’m just making the point of the real viewpoint and force behind the pro-abortion crowd. It’s the economics, stupid. The young men and single women don’t want the financial responsibility.

I’m just glad I’m a man, because I can barely imagine what it’s like to go through life living in fear because of one’s overwhelming sense of vulnerability, as women seem to.

One last thought: I think the cure to abortion is to make the mothers, by law, look at the remains of the abortion for 5 minutes. The word would get around quickly.

She doesn’t have the right to control somebody else’s body. A child is separate from its mother; it has its own DNA, it’s own body.

“Privacy” is one thing, killing is another. And, no, the doctor/patient relationship was never intended to cover that. As I recall, when doctors still swore the Hippocratic Oath, they swore not to perform abortions.

“It seems married women are prone to vote more sensibly, more conservatively. They have a man to rely on, thus feel more secure, and so, can think more sensibly, not being dominated by their fears.”

I’m not buying that one, of course. It’s true that married women vote more conservatively, but I’d hardly say it’s because they have a man to rely on. Married men vote more conservatively that unmarried men, too. The same impulses that lead a man or a woman to marry (ensuring a stable home for children who may result once one becomes sexually active) are the ones that lead voters to rely on themselves rather than the government for their households’ basic needs.

But I will agree that women trying to raise their children alone are more vulnerable to the fantasy that the government can step in as a surrogate parent to people who ought to be playing the role of grownups themselves.

Marc, from the statistics I’ve seen, Oldguy’s right, at least in certain age groups. Not only do cynical young men want abortion with no restrictions, they want a social environment where a young woman can be socially pressured into getting one, taking the guy off the hook.

Women who get abortions often carry psychological scars for life. The guys who got them pregnant, no.

“BC should be put in the water supply. No antidote unless you can provide proof of assets, a marriage certificate, and evidence of mental competency. No more indulging in bastardy, the cause of most social problems costing me taxes.”

I agree! And I’m married pretty happily married to the father of all mine I can NOT imagine doing this alone!

When 15 year-old LaShonda (or Juanita) gets knocked up by 20 year-old gangbanger Alonzo (or Jose) what we have is a future inmate or breeder of inmates waiting to hatch. It’s obvious that LaShonda/Juanita isn’t equipped to raise a kid. Better an abortion than a future criminal or breeder of more unwanted children.

Anglo Unity has stated his opinion pretty well just with his name. He’s fine with killing minority kids. I agree the poverty and welfare dependence and gang activities of blacks and hispanics are a problem, but killing their babies is not the solution. Someone tried that already-Hitler ring a bell? Stalin?

She doesn’t have the right to control somebody else’s body. A child is separate from its mother; it has its own DNA, it’s own body.

You are correct – a child is separate from its mother, while a fetus is not. Thanks for noting the distinction. Does the fetus have a right to control someone else’s body? Perplexing, isn’t it.

“Privacy” is one thing, killing is another. And, no, the doctor/patient relationship was never intended to cover that.

The doctor/patient relationship must respect the privacy of the patient. Doctors understand that there are occasions where abortion is the best choice. That’s why doctors and patients should be making this decision – not politicians or priests.

As for “controlling” its mother—again, you have this very strange idea that an unborn child is something eeeeeeeeeevillllllll! A cancer, an invader, a criminal, who has forced itself upon some poor woman, entirely against her will! The poor woman, you see, had no idea that engaging in sex might result in pregnancy, and that even the best of birth control methods fail.

Really, Dave, where do you get such odd ideas about human reproduction? Also, such odd ideas about women: aren’t they free agents, with rights and responsibilities towards others, not shivering, fragile flowers, who must be defended against the menace of eeeeeeevil babies, who invade them entirely against their will?

Again, I have to say—Momof3 in Post #88 pretty much sums it all up; what do people think is going to happen if they engage in sex either unprotected, or relying on condoms to keep from getting pregnant? Even the best forms of birth control sometimes fail; wouldn’t it be better to wait for a committed sexual relationship, where you’re actually ready to care for a kid if one results?

As for rape, it’s less than 1% of all pregnancies, and, no, it’s not the child’s fault, so why punish him or her? Punish the rapist, and let the kid serve a brief jail sentence, or maybe perform community service. (Okay, that was sarc.)

As for doctors, they should not decide who gets to live, and who gets to die. Not a good idea, as witnessed by the sorry Eugenics debacle, in the first part of the last century.

Dave — What does it mean to say a child is separate from its mother, but a fetus is not? The biggest difference I see is that, if Mom abandons a baby after birth, it’s easier for others to step in and rescue it before it starves to death on the hillside. If Mom abandons a fetus before 23-24 weeks of gestation, rescuers almost certainly will be helpless. What should we conclude from this about Mom’s duty to her own child before or after birth? Is a nursing baby a parasite who “controls” his mother’s body by robbing her of milk?

Texan99, I’m beginning to think that a “controlling” parasite is, exactly, how people like DavidS. do see a fetus; to them, it’s a parasite, even a criminal, forcing itself into its mother’s body, interfering with her ability to devote herself to climbing the corporate ladder or have a free, completely uninhibited sex life or to control her own body, or whatever the current buzz phrase of the week is.

They also see pregnancy as deadly to women, and a fetus as something akin to an armed attacker, deliberately out to destroy the mother.

(And I’ve already stated my opinion about pregnancies resulting from rape: 1.) The kid is not the one who should be punished for the rape, and 2.) Such pregnancies make up only a small percentage of abortions in this country. Abotion is more about the mother’s convenience, and, incresingly, the mother’s desire to bear a child of the “right” sex.)

An interesting thought experiment is one I’ve heard expressed this way: if there were a genetic test that accurately predicted whether a baby was going to be born innately homosexual, would it be right for parents to abort on that basis?

It’s odd that if you place the fetus within an identified victim group, it immediately seems more human.

All I can say is, that if you take the position of many feminists (and people like David S.), then, yes, if it’s soley about woman/woman’s right to choose/between a woman and her doctor—and you can get a doctor to go along with it—then, yes, they’d have no grounds at all for objecting to aborting a fetus because it would be homosexual—or the “wrong” race—or the “wrong” sex, or whatever.

Once you make it about womens’ choice, and nothing more, you really can’t object. Hey, it’s the woman’s choice, and she chose not to have a homosexual child! Why are you pro-lifers always trying to control womens’ bodies?

I’ve heard, by the way, that the US is running a clandestine business for couples from other countries who want to check the sex of their child—if it’s a girl, they abort, if it’s a boy, they keep it. Womans’ right to choose, and, if her doctor agrees (and is paid a hefty sum for such agreement) how can you “burden” here with a female child? Da noive a some people!

I notice that many here use the phrase “pro abortion.” I do not know of one single person who is “pro abortion”, although I concede they probably do exist. The correct phrase for most is pro choice. Many pro choicers would not have an abortion except under extreme circumstances. The point is that most pro choice folks do not believe it is the business of the gov’t. It is a private decision made with the woman and her doctor. Some genetic defects are horrific, and there is no chance for the child to have any quality…they can’t see, talk, laugh, feel, eat…would be bedridden for life. I just can not say to the woman struggling with whether she can bring that child into the world is a murderer. My heart aches for those, for those who are raped, for those who have to decide between their life and their child’s? If you have 3 babies already, and now you are pregnant again, and your life is in serious danger…why is that unborn more important than the mother..who will be the mother to the other 3 babies? I don’t have all the answers by any means…just do not think it is easy, or black and white.

I often read comments that say “I do not know of one single person who is pro-abortion,” usually in that specific wording, for some reason. I’m not sure where they’ve been. I’ve encountered many people who are pro-abortion. People who consider abortion an A-number-one convenience, thank Goodness for it, I only wish it weren’t so expensive.

It’s more comfortable to talk as if abortion never happens except when the parents have been put to the excruciating choice between abortion and the birth of a profoundly sick baby who will never be able to feed herself, or between abortion and the probable death of the mother. As if those two extraordinary scenarios had ever been more than the tiniest fraction of the millions of abortions we routinely perform! It’s an attempt to make abortion the “compassionate” choice, without acknowledging that in the vast majority of cases, the compassion has to be about how inconvenient it is that babies sometimes result from the indulgence of our sexual drives.

Abortion of disabled fetuses is euthanasia, so depending on how you feel about euthanasia, it may seem like a good option to keep open. Abortion of a fetus whose continued gestation will kill the mother no matter what is a wrenching step that some unlucky doctors and patients are forced to take when the fetus obviously cannot survive under any circumstances. And it has little or nothing to do with most abortions.

I have a dear friend whose mother was diagnosed with ovarian cancer during her pregnancy. My friend is alive because her mother risked her own life to carry her baby to term before undergoing chemo. It wasn’t a sure death sentence or a pointless self-sacrificing gesture, but it was an awful risk. My friend’s mother couldn’t have lived with herself if she hadn’t risked her life to save her daughter. My point is not that I should decide for a mother how much risk she should be willing to take before handing her baby over for death. It’s that mothers who believe in the humanity of their unborn children will approach the moral choice in much the same way they would a decision whether to step in front of the bullet that’s aimed at one of their toddlers.

bobbybb, what do you say to the fact (and it’s a well-established one) that 80% of abortions are repeat customers? IE, people using it as birth control. And how can you or anyone say what someone’s quality of life will be? No one can say that. There are people with no legs or arms who are grateful every day for their life, and people born perfectly healthy into priviledge who are miserable every day. I doubt you’d want someone else deciding your quality of life and whether you deserved to live.

In 99% of the cases WHERE THE PREGNANCY THREATENS THE MOM, it is AFTER viability. C-sections are easier than an abortion. And the percentage of pregnancies that threaten the mom are less than 5%, so the percentage overall of moms who’s life is threatened prior to viability is so minute it’s not worth talking about. More women die from abortions than that.

Mags, if you don’t live here, stay out of OUR decisions. If I’d had a relative terminate, I’d have nothing else to do with them. Simple. ANd abortion is a startlingly easy decision for far too many women.

Mags, if you don’t live here, stay out of OUR decisions. If I’d had a relative terminate, I’d have nothing else to do with them. Simple. ANd abortion is a startlingly easy decision for far too many women.

How would you know they terminated? Why would anyone share their difficulties with you, given your promised response? Maybe you should stay out of others’ decisions, eh?

Birth Control in the water supply? Have you people read “Brave New World?” I don’t want a bunch of out-of-wedlock babies any more than you do, but this “solution” is outright insanity. You are literally advocating poisoning the water supply with steroids and forcing people to either drink it or distill their water.

Mom of 3….Thanks for your comment. I am not talking about no arms or legs..i am talking about no brain function, no ability to see/hear/feel/think/eat/take care of own bodily functions…nothing. Honestly can you say you would want to live like that..or can you call it living? I think using abortion as a means of birth control is despicable. I see many disabled folks who are wonderful, and my family would not consider an abortion for a minor disability. Then of course is the other issue of that I just don’t think the gov’t should get in the middle of this stuff. Thought the GOP was for limited gov’t, but what I see is that they are for limited gov’t other than morality issues. I am sure we will not see eye to eye on this, but appreciate your input was delivered without rudeness or attacking. Best of luck.

Bobby bb, no daughter I raised would do that. Because of how she’s raised. A pregnancy is possible yes, but abortion no. They are 5, and we talk about sex, and babies, and how sex is for marriage and babies need moms and dads. As they grow, we’ll expand that to safe sex, and the possible consequences, and how they can come to us with them and we’ll help. With anything but an abortion, and we’ll explain why on that too. And yes, killing another member of our family is the ONLY thing that gets you kicked out of the family.

“If you think it’s simple, you haven’t been paying attention.”

If you think it’s not, you aren’t paying attention to the stats.

Google “man with no brain”. There’s a guy living I think in england, with no brain. Living a normal life. Had that been seen on ultrasound, he’d have been aborted I’m sure. Yet he’s a functioning happy adult. No one can say what will happen with life. No one has the right to terminate another’s at their whim.

Again with the argument of “abortion on demand for convenience must be OK because some fetuses will never have any brain function.” If abortions were limited to fetuses without any brain function, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. We’d be having the euthanasia discussion instead.

It’s because of comments like yours that i am delighted not to be in your country.
It is none of my buisness,but i am in the U.K involved in this area and the misrepresentation of us is constantly attacked.

WWhat a women does with her body should not have anything to do with you or government.

Morals are based on behaviour,to say you would reject your own daughter is shocking.

mom of 3….do you know of any person who was totally raised one way..and then when they grew up, they made choices that were totally at odds with how they were raised? I know of many. My guess is that if your child grows up and sadly feels she needs an abortion..she will never tell you that because she knows she will no longer be in the family? Of course I respect that right of yours…just another area we disagree with. My kids know there is nothing they can do that will make me kick them out of the family, even if they do 100% of what I am against. Would I like it..no, but would they be a part of the family still….absolutely.

Abortion is repugnant, period. We get hung up on the issue because in Roe v. Wade, our Supreme Court acted as a legislative body instead of a judicial body, and now we’re stuck with the ruling until the Court reverses it.

States should be allowed to regulate their own policies on abortion, either for or against, because the Constitution doesn’t specifically address the issue. Therefore, states are meant to regulate the issue. Period. Follow the one true law of the land, and the rest will follow naturally. For some reason we fell in love a long time ago with the idea of federal laws governing all, new laws, etc. that had no business being made; executive brand directives, all that stuff should never have happened. States need to be allowed to regulate on their own, because at least at that reduced level, people can more easily vote people out, change things, etc.

This has been a thoughtful debate (for the most part) and, as with all thoughtful debates about abortion, the pro-life side has won the argument without any question. The objections raised by those favoring legal abortion (and most of their points were nonsensical) were dispatched with easily simply by applying sound logic. Thank you for an enlightening conversation, something you will find sorely lacking at liberal websites that address this topic. Their reasoning always skirts the key issues, as though merely saying “It’s the woman’s right to choose” settles things, once and for all. Brilliant! Why didn’t I think of that.

GOD will be the judge of all of us one way or another, NOT these terrible bullies! Jesus was peaceful and would have never done any of this and would not have approved in any way. These “sidewalk counselors” are doing the devil’s work and are the new Westboro Baptist Church of our community and their arrogant ignorance is so sad and pathetic that it sickens me.
These are the worst of the worst of anti-abortion (and anti-gay, anti-religious freedom) extremists. Anyone that associates with these people will be judged the same way by the public and by God (as mentally ill, sadistic and psychopathic!) There is a special place in Hell for all of these people, but it’s just as well, since these “sidewalk counselors” hate Jesus and are doing the devil’s work.
I am a member of a very large and REAL Christian Church south of Denver and our Pastor gave a wonderful sermon on Sunday about how these “sidewalk counselor” bullies blaspheme the name of the Lord. Our Pastor encouraged us to contact Voice of Choice (http://www.vochoice.org) to help attempt to get the protesters to see that this should not be about anyone’s stance on abortion, but to NOT BULLY and NOT HARRASS your fellow human beings.
Hundreds of the Denver parishioners and their family members have contacted Voice of Choice and offered their services to do what they could do to help. I hope you will do the same. Please pray for the protesters!